Iranian: Retaliation if Israel attacks

[mawilson 2,133]

absolutley agree. but as to the question who would win.....if nukes are used we all lose.(nuclear winter) in a conventional war. thats going to be decided by China. the middle eastern alliances are fairly even, whoever China backs would come out on top.

China and Russia will not interfere. It wouldn't be the first Arab-Israeli war and

if the Soviet Union didn't help their staunch allies back then, I don't see why Russia

would want to help them now. I see even less reason for China to join the fight.

It's going to be the Jews vs the Arabs/Persians/whatever, I'm 'fraid.

[GaryC 7]

absolutley agree. but as to the question who would win.....if nukes are used we all lose.(nuclear winter) in a conventional war. thats going to be decided by China. the middle eastern alliances are fairly even, whoever China backs would come out on top.

I too don't think China or Russia would get involved. And as for a Nuclear winter, that only happens when we have a full nuclear exchange between us and Russia. The dozen or so nukes that Israel and Iran could field wouldn't give us a winter.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I have to agree with the general consensus here.

Although the IDF is, most likely, the superior fighting force in the region, Israel will not only be fighting Iran in this conflict. Many other Muslim and Arab nations which have allied with Iran (and even those which haven't) would join in on the fight against Israel, if for no other reason than their overall hatred of the Jewish nation. They'd see this as a perfect opportunity to strike back at Israel, since they could claim they are retaliating and protecting their allies from harm.

It would be an extremely unwise move for Israel to attack Iran first. I realize Israel is nervous of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities (so is the United States) and being in that region of the world, where their neighbors would love to eliminate them, they have to be constantly on alert. However, if they become the aggressor, Iran will be justified in it's response.

I also doubt the U.S. could be of much help in that case as well. We're already over-extended, dealing with both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the last thing we'd want to do is get involved in a war with Iran and other countries in the area at the same time. So for the most part, Israel would on it's own and I don't think it could handle a war against practically every country in the Middle-East, plus a bunch of Islamic terrorists, all at once.

If Israel were to do anything, perhaps an assassination attempt on "you-know-who" would be in order. If it works, that nutcase is out of power (of course, another lunatic would probably fill the vacuum, but there's not much anyone can do about that!) and if it fails, Israel could always deny the actions; it could claim the attempt was performed by zealots and not officially sanctioned. Either way, there would be no outward invasion, no missiles, no bombs, etc. If Iran got angry and struck at Israel, then the IDF would be publically justified in reacting to Iran with force. A war might ensue from it anyway, but at least the "international community" would be more likely to see Israel as the victim, rather than the aggressor.

[mawilson 2,133]

I think everyone could do with a few deep breaths, and then step back from the brink.

I don't know, I don't usually go in for the conspiracy theories but I have a bad feeling about this. It is possible that Israel will attack Iran sometime before Bush leaves office hoping that we will back them up in a fight. I hope this does not happen but I fear that we may get drawn into this thing.

If Israel has plans to attack Iran before Bush leaves office, you can rest assured that Bush

and his cabinet are in the know. Israel won't attack anyone "hoping" that the U.S will back

them, they will make damn sure they will get U.S. backing before they do.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

absolutley agree. but as to the question who would win.....if nukes are used we all lose.(nuclear winter) in a conventional war. thats going to be decided by China. the middle eastern alliances are fairly even, whoever China backs would come out on top.

China and Russia will not interfere. It wouldn't be the first Arab-Israeli war and

if the Soviet Union didn't help their staunch allies back then, I don't see why Russia

would want to help them now. I see even less reason for China to join the fight.

It's going to be the Jews vs the Arabs/Persians/whatever, I'm 'fraid.

i thought france was talking about taking on iran a day or so ago?

[Jasman0717 9]

I think Israel has nukes and probably wouldn't be afraid to use them

[GaryC 7]

I have to agree with the general consensus here.

Although the IDF is, most likely, the superior fighting force in the region, Israel will not only be fighting Iran in this conflict. Many other Muslim and Arab nations which have allied with Iran (and even those which haven't) would join in on the fight against Israel, if for no other reason than their overall hatred of the Jewish nation. They'd see this as a perfect opportunity to strike back at Israel, since they could claim they are retaliating and protecting their allies from harm.

It would be an extremely unwise move for Israel to attack Iran first. I realize Israel is nervous of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities (so is the United States) and being in that region of the world, where their neighbors would love to eliminate them, they have to be constantly on alert. However, if they become the aggressor, Iran will be justified in it's response.

I also doubt the U.S. could be of much help in that case as well. We're already over-extended, dealing with both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the last thing we'd want to do is get involved in a war with Iran and other countries in the area at the same time. So for the most part, Israel would on it's own and I don't think it could handle a war against practically every country in the Middle-East, plus a bunch of Islamic terrorists, all at once.

If Israel were to do anything, perhaps an assassination attempt on "you-know-who" would be in order. If it works, that nutcase is out of power (of course, another lunatic would probably fill the vacuum, but there's not much anyone can do about that!) and if it fails, Israel could always deny the actions; it could claim the attempt was performed by zealots and not officially sanctioned. Either way, there would be no outward invasion, no missiles, no bombs, etc. If Iran got angry and struck at Israel, then the IDF would be publically justified in reacting to Iran with force. A war might ensue from it anyway, but at least the "international community" would be more likely to see Israel as the victim, rather than the aggressor.

Israel got away with bombing Iraq when it felt that Saddam was close to getting a nuke. I wonder if they think they could get away with it again?

[mawilson 2,133]

Israel got away with bombing Iraq when it felt that Saddam was close to getting a nuke. I wonder if they think they could get away with it again?

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be easy.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I have to agree with the general consensus here.

Although the IDF is, most likely, the superior fighting force in the region, Israel will not only be fighting Iran in this conflict. Many other Muslim and Arab nations which have allied with Iran (and even those which haven't) would join in on the fight against Israel, if for no other reason than their overall hatred of the Jewish nation. They'd see this as a perfect opportunity to strike back at Israel, since they could claim they are retaliating and protecting their allies from harm.

It would be an extremely unwise move for Israel to attack Iran first. I realize Israel is nervous of Iran gaining nuclear capabilities (so is the United States) and being in that region of the world, where their neighbors would love to eliminate them, they have to be constantly on alert. However, if they become the aggressor, Iran will be justified in it's response.

I also doubt the U.S. could be of much help in that case as well. We're already over-extended, dealing with both Afghanistan and Iraq, so the last thing we'd want to do is get involved in a war with Iran and other countries in the area at the same time. So for the most part, Israel would on it's own and I don't think it could handle a war against practically every country in the Middle-East, plus a bunch of Islamic terrorists, all at once.

If Israel were to do anything, perhaps an assassination attempt on "you-know-who" would be in order. If it works, that nutcase is out of power (of course, another lunatic would probably fill the vacuum, but there's not much anyone can do about that!) and if it fails, Israel could always deny the actions; it could claim the attempt was performed by zealots and not officially sanctioned. Either way, there would be no outward invasion, no missiles, no bombs, etc. If Iran got angry and struck at Israel, then the IDF would be publically justified in reacting to Iran with force. A war might ensue from it anyway, but at least the "international community" would be more likely to see Israel as the victim, rather than the aggressor.

Israel got away with bombing Iraq when it felt that Saddam was close to getting a nuke. I wonder if they think they could get away with it again?

I think the greatest difference here is between Iraq's former leader and Iran's current leader. Hussein wasn't anywhere near as charasmatic and inspiring for his people as Ahmadinejad is today. The citizens and leaders of other nations in the Middle-East notice this as well, so they'd be more likely to be swayed by his oratory capabilities.

After all... who would you be more willing to lay down your life for? Someone who would overtly threaten you and your family or someone who would convince you that they could give you and your family the world if you join them? B)

[smoke20 0]

I think Israel has nukes and probably wouldn't be afraid to use them

exactly, & what happens when the fall out from it blows into Russia? my guess is "our bombs bigger than yours"

[GaryC 7]

Israel got away with bombing Iraq when it felt that Saddam was close to getting a nuke. I wonder if they think they could get away with it again?

Perhaps, but it wouldn't be easy.

The US would hopefully limit it's support to suppling Israel with some hi-tech stuff like some Patriot batteries and some smart bombs.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think everyone could do with a few deep breaths, and then step back from the brink.

Yes. Geez Louise.

[mawilson 2,133]

The US would hopefully limit it's support to suppling Israel with some hi-tech stuff like some Patriot batteries and some smart bombs.

Israel already has lots of those. What they need is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP),

the Mother of All Bombs.

The largest conventional bomb ever used

Boeing announced on Monday that its Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) demo weapon

had successfully completed a "static tunnel lethality test" at the White Sands Missile Range

in New Mexico.

The MOP, which also goes under the names "Big BLU" and "Direct Hard Target Strike Weapon",

is a 30,000-pound brute, intended for delivery by B-52 Stratofortresses or B-2 stealth bombers

against deeply buried or heavily protected targets.

The US originally had a plan to deal with enemy bunkers, WMD facilities or whatnot using a

special ground-penetrating nuke. The "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" programme was

axed by the Senate in 2005, however, leaving the MOP as America's last best hope for taking

out difficult targets.

Bomb spotters may care to note that the MOP won't be the heaviest conventional bomb ever

made by the US. The 1940s era T-12, at almost 44,000lb, was a substantially bigger brute.

The T-12 was one of the final developments of the World War II Allies' "earthquake bomb"

programmes, developed to knock out German V-weapon sites and U-boat pens. Famed British

bomb boffin Barnes Wallis, inventor of the dam-busting "bouncing bomb", was an early innovator,

designing the "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" penetrators.

The T-12 didn't arrive in time for wartime use, and is now obsolete. The US does have some

pretty hefty ordnance in current service, most famously the 21,700-lb GBU-43B Massive

Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB) job – perhaps better known under its media nickname "Mother

Of All Bombs".

The MOAB isn't any good for knocking out bunkers, however. It's a pure blast weapon,

essentially a massive lump of explosive without penetrating abilities. It was developed to

replace the old 15,000lb "Daisy Cutters" which US forces used to flatten jungle and create

helicopter landing zones in Vietnam.

The MOP, however, should be just the ticket for deep bunkers. Most of its weight is actually

in the hardened metal casing, which will strike the earth at several times the speed of sound

after falling from high altitude. This should enable the MOP to drill a long way down before

exploding.

There must be a lot of planners at the Pentagon scratching their heads right now over the

Iranian nuke facility at Natanz, parts of which are said to be 75 feet underground and covered

by metres of reinforced concrete. They'll be very keen to see the MOP ready for use.

[GaryC 7]

The US would hopefully limit it's support to suppling Israel with some hi-tech stuff like some Patriot batteries and some smart bombs.

Israel already has lots of those. What they need is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP),

the Mother of All Bombs.

Does Israel have something that can deliver this?

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

The US would hopefully limit it's support to suppling Israel with some hi-tech stuff like some Patriot batteries and some smart bombs.

Israel already has lots of those. What they need is the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP),

the Mother of All Bombs.

Does Israel have something that can deliver this?

maybe a pallet drop out of a c-130